I guess this is what you would call a "soft" launch. You don't really get any "softer" than this, lol. I mean, it's almost like they are deliberately trying to fail or something. The thing is, we know this isn't the case, because Sony, Samsung and Panasonic are behind this 3D push in a major way. They all want to see the 3D thing succeed. (Mits, Toshiba and Vizio as well I'm guessing...)

But what I can't understand is why anyone would want to buy a 3D Blu Ray player right now. There isn't anything to watch. It doesn't make much sense. I can't see anyone spending $400 or more on a Blu Ray player to watch 1 freaking movie!

On the plus side, at least gamers can be relatively entertained. Sony does have their 3D firmware coming in the summer which should allow a bunch of PS3 games to work in 3D. There is likely to be way more 3D gaming content, than movie or TV content in 3D. If you have no interest in games, then yeah, it sucks major. The only case I can make for the industry, is that they are basically looking at 2011 as the "real" launch of 3D, and they aren't going to make any serious efforts until then. Who knows... maybe their strategy is 4th quarter 2010. It's going to be a slow burn thru most of 2010 though.

I suppose if one were in the market for an HDTV, it would be a good time to buy a 3D HDTV instead of a normal one. That way, you'd be ready for next year. Otherwise, there's little incentive to jump in. Still, it's one of the oddest things I've ever seen. Tons of hype, lots of press, important industry types making all kinds of noise about 3D - and nothing to watch. Get everyone hot and bothered - and make them wait. I do expect several titles by the holiday buying season, but if that doesn't happen, I'm at a complete loss to understand why 3D has unfolded the way it has.

And despite what's been said, I'd be surprised if Avatar in 3D doesn't hit just in time to spur on sales of 3D HDTVs for Christmas. Even if it's in theaters for a second run, I'll be shocked if it's not released for the 2010 holidays.

For instance, the clash of the titans (new one in theaters) and Harry potter and the deathly hallows are going to be in 3D. As the directors has said so, at least I read I did on some site. Not sure if they'll stick to their word or not.

For instance, the clash of the titans (new one in theaters) and Harry potter and the deathly hallows are going to be in 3D. As the directors has said so, at least I read I did on some site. Not sure if they'll stick to their word or not.

There are quite a few movies in 3D coming out in theaters this year, but we're talking about in the home. That's kind of the point of this whole thing.

The article says: "It [using two cameras] also doubles much of the visual effects work as you have to render everything twice." I don't believe this. Also, the article is apparently about the theater experience, rather than 3D at home.

Lee,
Good idea starting this thread. I think that as a result the handfull of us that are now regulars on thiese forums have alll learned a lot more about HDTVs, BR players and BR recordings that meet and/or support the new Blu-Ray FullHD specification requirements and also about those that do not.

Here are some of my thoughts:

1. The TV and player vendors(especialy Sony) are trying too hard to identify their new products as FullHD 3D products instead of as new top of the line TV and BR player products which now support the new BR 3D spec in adddition to having features not avialble in their lower level models in their product line. As an example of such features the HD Guru's testing link clearly pointed out that the 3D panasonic also had better PQ with 2D content then any 2D panasonic plasma he had previosly tested.

2 The Blu-Ray group is doing nothing to point out why their new 3D disks are any better then any other Blu-ray disks that identify on the package that they have 3D content. The simple logo with differnt font for the term "3D" certainly does nothing to estabish a distinctive brand. Nor has the Blu-Ray group AFASIK stated how they want to have their disks referred to. For exampe you use the abreviation "3D BR" and I prefer to use the abreviation "FullHD 3D BR disk". Hopefully those of us in this forum can agree on a set of names/abreviations that are not ambiguios and can then list them in a sticky for our own use and as glossary for those visiting these forums to refer to in order to understand the available SS3Dor should se say S3D products better.

3. The CEA should get involved and should say what names vendors of any SS3D/S3D products can use. The CEA certainly did not do this for HDTV and what a mess it caused when they allowed any digital display which contained 720 or more pixels per row as a 720p HDTV. What a mess this caused when Plasma 16:9 screen aspect ratio TV decided to release 1024x768 native resolution models with rectangular pixels in order to reduce their manufacturing costs. Another example is that the CEA did not establish how amnorphic DVDs should be labeles so each studio decided on it's own unique name.

4. As mentioned by other's I think the studio and player vendors are making a hudge mistake by not making new FullHD 3D BR disks avaialble at retail without any player restirtions even for a limited time. This IMHO will significasntly reduce the number of FullHD 3D BR disk compatible HDTVs and Players sold by the end of this calendar year since so list only about 5-8 lablels will be available by November.

Hopefully others will also respond to your request for thoughts on the "Current state of 3D HD" and a discussion of them can result in reducing the confusion that is now present.

I was hoping we would have a unified effort on launching 3D BD, which due to the format war with HD DVD didn't happen with BD. We haven't heard from the BDA on 3D BD since they announed the specs were completed for 3D BD 3 months ago.

The studios themselves are another puzzling part of the state of 3D BD today. It appears from first glance that Dreamworks Animation is giving support to 3D BD, just from the fact that they have 5 annouced titles.

What about these titles and these studios?

Coraline - Universal

My Bloody Valentine 3D - LionsGate

Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D - New Line/WB

Final Destination: Death Trip 3D - New line WB

Does every title have to be a CGI cartoon? There are three live action 3D titles right there.

I was hoping we would have a unified effort on launching 3D BD, which due to the format war with HD DVD didn't happen with BD. We haven't heard from the BDA on 3D BD since they announed the specs were completed for 3D BD 3 months ago.

The studios themselves are another puzzling part of the state of 3D BD today. It appears from first glance that Dreamworks Animation is giving support to 3D BD, just from the fact that they have 5 annouced titles.

What about these titles and these studios?

Coraline - Universal

My Bloody Valentine 3D - LionsGate

Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D - New Line/WB

Final Destination: Death Trip 3D - New line WB

Does every title have to be a CGI cartoon? There are three live action 3D titles right there.

I remember reading something around CES (I think from CNET) that Warner Bros had a 3D reel running at Panasonic's booth that showcased Journey to the Center of the Earth and The Polar Express on Bluray 3D. When the clips ended, it said that both titles were planned for release sometime this year. I have yet to see a press release confirming that though. I'm especially interested in Journey because it currently lacks a lossless audio track here in the States, plus I thought the movie was a lot of fun in 3D (yeah it's gimmicky with stuff popping out at you, but I don't care).

Back in the late 90's as HDTV was making it's debut I remember seeing a similar trend as we see today with 3D. All of the manufacturers were jumping on the HD bandwagon and content providers, primarily TV stations, were making announcements with little, or no, content to back it up. Back then it seems like Discovery was one of maybe two HD stations and, even then, most of the programming was still filmed in SD and simply up-converted.

Today, with 3D, we have a similar trend where all of the main manufacturers are investing millions to back up a technology whose content, frankly, is extremely limited right now. Having seen the 3D at CES personally I believe that the technology is good enough now that people will be willing to invest in it but, like HD, it will take some time before it is adopted on a large scale. We should have a pretty good idea, come December, as to whether or not HD3D is going to take off but it's content, not technology that is going to sell it.

Yeah all this really makes 3d less compelling. Thus is the peril of early adoption. You get the newest, hottest tech and very limited content. Comes with the territory. However the amount of content appears to be limited further more by attaching exclusivity of titles with which manufacturer you purchase your set with. Wow..... However upon reading the handout they gave me at Best Buy, it indicates that the Samsung displays has its own 3d processor built in which would allow 3d rendering of 2d content. I wonder how effective that is? I suppose that could tide some one over until content is more widespread.

The article says: "It [using two cameras] also doubles much of the visual effects work as you have to render everything twice." I don't believe this. Also, the article is apparently about the theater experience, rather than 3D at home.

When he references "render" he is talking about the actual rendering of the 3d scene. With how complex these scenes are, it takes a very long time to render them. In stereo, you have to render each frame 2x, one for each camera.

Treebeard alone in LOTR took 28 hours to render a single frame. In stereo, each "frame" would have to be rendered twice, so you are looking at 56 hours PER frame.

I think this concern is a little premature. I don't think anyone expected 3D to be out before this Summer and Samsung and Panasonic both shocked us by shipping in March.

I believe we'll see 3D Blu-ray Discs on the shelf for sale either this Summer or the Fall. By then all the manufacturers should have their 3DTVs on the market and the studios will feel better about producing all those discs.

Ben
How good could it be if it isn't HD?
No longer contributing to Engadget HD

When he references "render" he is talking about the actual rendering of the 3d scene. With how complex these scenes are, it takes a very long time to render them. In stereo, you have to render each frame 2x, one for each camera.

But it's still not "double the visual effects work". Rendering another viewpoint later may take a lot of time, but it will be mostly automated. The time consuming part for the visual effects people will be the animating etc., and the effects people won't need to do double the amount of animating or 3d modelling.

Quote:

Treebeard alone in LOTR took 28 hours to render a single frame. In stereo, each "frame" would have to be rendered twice, so you are looking at 56 hours PER frame.

You could use double the amount of computers to halve the time, and/or use more/faster processors - and computers will have got faster than when they made those films.

Yeah all this really makes 3d less compelling. Thus is the peril of early adoption. You get the newest, hottest tech and very limited content. Comes with the territory. However the amount of content appears to be limited further more by attaching exclusivity of titles with which manufacturer you purchase your set with. Wow..... However upon reading the handout they gave me at Best Buy, it indicates that the Samsung displays has its own 3d processor built in which would allow 3d rendering of 2d content. I wonder how effective that is? I suppose that could tide some one over until content is more widespread.

Cheers

One poster in some thread around here said PS3 games (2D to 3D) looked great on the Samsung sets.

But it's still not "double the visual effects work". Rendering another viewpoint later may take a lot of time, but it will be mostly automated. The time consuming part for the visual effects people will be the animating etc., and the effects people won't need to do double the amount of animating or 3d modelling.

Correct, but if you have 3 months of dedicated rendering time, you now have 6 months.

Quote:

You could use double the amount of computers to halve the time, and/or use more/faster processors - and computers will have got faster than when they made those films.

Yes it is an old example, but it puts things into perspective. They had several thousand computers, doubling them wouldn't have been cheap... that would have cost in the millions.

Computers have gotten faster, but so have rendering processes and complexity. As the computers get faster, the scenes have just gotten more complex... neither is really gaining ground right now.

It's an inevitable effect of marketing and retail sales that the price of your product will go down over time, and bricks and mortar stores will give new releases promotional and placement advantages over old product. There aren't enough 3D sets out there yet to make it worthwhile to launch your entire catalog now, and then suffer the price and placement erosion while waiting for the installed base to increase.

We saw the same phenomenon with Blu-ray releases initially. Yes, the content providers have to provide enough content to give the early adopters something to watch. . . but they are going to hold back on their major assets until there are more people out there who will be excited to buy and watch them *on the day of release*, and not 6 months or a year later.

It's an inevitable effect of marketing and retail sales that the price of your product will go down over time, and bricks and mortar stores will give new releases promotional and placement advantages over old product. There aren't enough 3D sets out there yet to make it worthwhile to launch your entire catalog now, and then suffer the price and placement erosion while waiting for the installed base to increase.

We saw the same phenomenon with Blu-ray releases initially. Yes, the content providers have to provide enough content to give the early adopters something to watch. . . but they are going to hold back on their major assets until there are more people out there who will be excited to buy and watch them *on the day of release*, and not 6 months or a year later.

Agreed - but there are NO 3D BD's being sold to the general public. No tech reason for this. They would play fine in 2D in legacy BD players.

They are releasing a new format with new equipment and no content

How well would BD have done if all they did was release players and no movies? What? Use it as a upconveting player for DVD until there was a healthy population of BD players?

Business Plan?
It takes time to get past the Chicken/Egg question.
Anxious early adopters will buy anything that says 3D.
Then every year or so, they'll buy the new and improved model.
Maybe at some point the bugs will have been worked out and enough content will be available to entice the semi-early adopters.
Maybe we can make a few bucks before 3D is a commodity.

Avatar was so good because it was filmed in stereo, all these other movies are being converted.

To me they look like an old popup book, just depth of field for random 2d images. Looks stupid, and it's definitely a FAD.

We need to start popularizing a term like "Full 3D" or "True 3D" for those shot with 3D cameras not containing any 2D conversions. So totally rendered (for 2 camera positions) 3D CGI would qualify, but Alice and Clash wouldn't. Harry Potter and hallows would be "some scenes in Full 3D"

We need to start popularizing a term like "Full 3D" or "True 3D" for those shot with 3D cameras not containing any 2D conversions. So totally rendered (for 2 camera positions) 3D CGI would qualify, but Alice and Clash wouldn't. Harry Potter and hallows would be "some scenes in Full 3D"